Microsoft Visual Studio 11 Preview

[Rob Williams]

With the next version of Visual Studio soon to be upon us, we're taking a look at what's worth waiting for. While some animosity exists around certain decisions made by Microsoft, VS11 brings a lot to the table, most notably the addition of a robust environment for creating Metro-based apps.

Read through Mario's look at Visual Studio 11 and then discuss it here!

 

[RainMotorsports]

The only reason I have ever had to touch VS is because of the header changes to DirectX that prevent me from using the newer libraries with other compilers. Though I intend to finally switch to C++ as a full time language I still wish to avoid VS but its inevitable that I will miss the IDE and libraries that I had with Delphi and short of sticking with C++ Builder which is written in Pascal itself LMFAO I will end up using VS.

 

[marfig]

There was a time that C++ Builder was indeed a great product and a sound alternative. But that time is long gone

Used it myself and will always carry with me sweet memories of my Borland days. C++ Builder, CodeWright for a little while. But also and mostly, and prior to that, DBase, Paradox and Turbo Pascal.

It's just that it's not even a good C++ compiler anymore. Size and speed code optimizations, standards adherence, and -- if you are into it -- compiler extensions just can't match the modern alternatives. gcc, Comeau, Digital Mars or Intel's C++ compiler, all are far better alternatives if one wants to ignore Visual Studio C++ compiler.

In fact, if not tied to Microsoft technologies (the likes of DirectX) the best combo I can think of is gcc with the immensely awesome SlickEdit, the best IDE I've ever known. Better yet than Visual Studio on what concerns pure IDE functions and the ability to use a scripting language/macro to further enhance it. If you aren't willing to put up the ~300 USD for SlickEdit, Code::Blocks is the best free alternative out there.

 

[RainMotorsports]

standards adherence.

Actually an area where it has things the standards should have What I mean to say is I think Dynamic Multi Dimensional Arrays should be a part of the standard and last i looked their not. Probably the only thing I like about C++ Builder is it is currently there as an actual part of the language. Horrible libraries but for someone like me it brings a certain familiar comfort which should be forgotten as quickly as possible.

Last i checked something like int example[][]; is not yet valid while int example [][2]; is. Its something I have been able to do in Pascal since 1998 and while it might not be required to be so easy I just hate that after 10 years something that is otherwise of valid use is still not implemented. Before Delphi 4 introduced it into Borlands adaptation of Apples Object Pascal we used to use a little pointer trick to do it.

I think someone even wrote a class that does it as well. I never had the time to finish studying the language. I am self taught after having worked for companies that used Delphi that was oh 14 years ago now.

As far as Code::Blocks used it while studying but also used the wxDev C++ IDE which is the continuation of DevC++ with the wxWidgets library in focus.

 

[marfig]

Actually an area where it has things the standards should have What I mean to say is I think Dynamic Multi Dimensional Arrays should be a part of the standard and last i looked their not.

Use std::vector.

God gave us the Standard Library, you know.

 

[RainMotorsports]

Use std::vector.

God gave us the Standard Library, you know.

Yeah problem with being self taught you don't know shit. LOL That's good. Primary reason I am moving away from Pascal, go ahead joke some more. Is that I am tired of the lack of 64 bit support and well support altogether. Free compilers, very well supported on most platforms, that's whats got me moving to C syntax languages. Along with somewhat more efficient code etc etc. Finally a 64 bit Delphi compiler available but not in the affordable package that would allow me to continue being a hobbyist.

The list of applications people use or have used written in Pascal would surprise them. It's not useless it just fell out of favor. Pretty sure alot could have been done to fix the issues still at large. None of them being on that paper "Why pascal is not my favorite language" which is very out of date.

I wanted to learn a long time ago but I was not at a level of understanding that would allow me to learn without starting from scratch and probably going to school where I would fail.